Talk:List of female monarchs

Untitled

All countries around the world aimed at the central government and local minor will potentially cover a total area. List of queens regnant, so I would like to leave from the distinction.

Forward this page will continue to update its own.--Yswj700 (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Easter Islands

Maybe these three "queens" of Easter Island should be removed. Their statuses as "queens" was probably made up by Pinart and Koreta's husband. As for now I have placed a note on that section.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Split

Maybe it is time to split them like the Coronation articles?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of non-queens

I am moving Joanna, Duchess of Durazzo (1348-1368) to the List of female rulers and title holders since she was never a queen. --Robin McNally (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Major reorganisation

Following a discussion with User:Aciram (see User_talk:Aciram#Regnant_vs_regent) we agreed that this page was too long and too confusing. In particular, because of the length, it is easy to drift between (or be confused by) queens regent and queens regnant. I intend (WP:BOLD) therefore to start a major restructuring of the page:

1. The hierarchy to be changed: organisation will be by region, then country, then sections showing queens regnant and then regent. For the moment I'll also include the legendary and titular queens and chieftainesses. I'm not totally sure about these last three and feedback here will be welcome.
2. Move to separate regional lists. See the discussion with Aciram linked to above and the example shown: List of the first female holders of political offices Each region list would be entitled "Queens of Europe" etc. There would be a heading explaining that queens consort are excluded.
3. Finally move this page to "List of Queens" which is currently a link here.

Comments welcome. If I don't hear any objections before the end of June I'll assume all watchers are happy and go ahead. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of this sounds good, User:Martin of Sheffield. Though, I would name the list as "female ruler" or "female regent" instead of "queen". Queen is a specific title, and a list of "queens" could in the end lead to problems, when people misunderstand and 1) place queen consorts here because they are queens as well and 2) people will exclude, refrain from adding, and remove, female rulers which did not have the title of queen, such as empresses, duchesses, chieftainesses, and so on. Therefore, I think the name of the lists should be "female rulers" instead of "queens". --Aciram (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I've made a start combining and changing heading levels etc. I've hatnoted to "List of female rulers and title holders" and will restrict things to Queens, Empresses and the like. Although I started adding "(regnant)" or "(regent)" to all entries, I'm going to change to just noting regents and titular; the list is, after all, headed queens regnant. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

So why are regents here at all? A list of queen regnants would be far, far easier to complete than a list including queens who served as regents. After all, the queen mother serving as regent for her young son is as old as the hills and as common as dirt. Srnec (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

They were here when I started. The old form of the list was confusing. Because is was so long it was easy to stray between regnant and regent when searching for a particular country (as mentioned above see User_talk:Aciram#Regnant_vs_regent). The new form keeps the queens geographically united which is clearer when a queen served both functions. Whether queens regent ought to be in a list of queens regnant is another issue from the purely wikignomic task I undertook! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this still in progress? I would suggest radical WP:TNT, recreate as a well-referenced and well-organised list in tabular form. --dab (𒁳) 06:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No. I was most of the way through when user:Yswj700 started reverting all the work I'd done. In August Yswj moved all the Queens regent back down to a separate section and neither pinged me, went on my talk page or discussed it here. If you look at User talk:Yswj700, its revision history and the user contributions you'll see a clear case of WP:OWN and a total ignoring of messages sent to Yswj. Frankly I gave up and found better things to do, based on Yswj's past performance it would have rapidly degenerated into an edit war. Feel free to use TNT or anything else you want, I've wasted enough time on the page and the author. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Order list

the number 6, 7 and 8 moved to 1-5. nah order e.g:

• queen regnant (5 continent)
• legandary queens
• titular queens
• chieftainess

it's completed. Akuindo (talk) 05:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the segregation of queen regnant and chieftainess. It seems very Eurocentric to differentiate the two especially for those in the chieftainess group which actually used the title of queen. How is the Mayan Yohl Ik'nal a queen regnant yet Liliuokalani who used the English title queen is in the chieftainess section. Also Tupoumoheofo, Salote Tupou III and Makea Takau Ariki are the only Oceanian indigenous monarch not categorized as chieftainess yet they had similar cultures to the other 19th century Polynesian/Oceanina monarchies. I proposed removing the distinction. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

njgiria?

I wanted to correct it because it looks like a misspelling of "Nigeria", but I didn't want anyone to get upset, either. 2602:301:779A:FC0:B00C:CBAF:2121:5D2C (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Lots of nonsense

There is a lot of nonsense listings of "not actually regnant but held a lot of power" women on this list. A queen or empresses as regent is per definition not and Queen/Empress regnant.★Trekker (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Moved without discussion

I need to question this move made without discussion. "Ruler" is a word that can be used quite widely. Are we now to add Indira Ghandi and many other such rulers? Margaret Thatcher, for all intents and purposes, ruled to a much greater extent than some of the queens regnant in history. Aren't we creating confusion? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

IMO, it should be moved to List of female monarchs, but that redirects to List of female hereditary rulers. Peter Ormond 💬 22:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Monarchs has often been used in literature for a king and his consort, i.e. the couple. How about List of royal female sovereigns? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I have restored the original title List of queens regnant, because indeed "rulers" is too vague, see the ongoing CfR about Category:Rulers at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_25#Category:Rulers. "Queens regnant" is specifically used to distinguish these women from queens consort, and queens regent (i.e. female regents). We need a proper distinction between these concepts, and the resulting lists, to prevent WP:OVERLAP and WP:REDUNDANTFORKs. And just in case we continue to face problems with regnant versus consort, we should probably add "reigning" to the first two.

1. The List of female hereditary monarchs (where List of female monarchs and List of female hereditary rulers redirect to) is organised alphabetically. I propose we rename that List of reigning female hereditary monarchs by name.
2. The List of queens regnant (this list) is organised geographically. I propose we rename it List of reigning female hereditary monarchs by country; compare Category:Heads of state by country, Category:Women politicians by country and Category:Monarchs by continent. This preserves the current list, makes it broader than those carrying the title "queen", and gives it a purpose separate from List of female hereditary monarchs by name by virtue of how it is organised. If we still think there is too much overlap between the two, then I suggest a merge.
3. The List of regents should perhaps be split into a List of female regents (because people keep repeatedly trying to add female regents to both lists mentioned above, where they don't belong; they have already been explicitly excluded from List of female hereditary monarchs, and yet there are still some regents in there) and List of male regents (for all that aren't female).
4. Maybe there should be a List of lists of royal consorts, based on Category:Lists of royal consorts? I don't think it would make much sense to create a "List of queens consort" or a "List of female royal consorts" because of the huge WP:OVERLAP that would have with existing lists of royal consorts. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

"List of Queens" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect List of Queens and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 6#List of Queens until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Queen Seondeok of Silla 01.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Title change: "List of queens regnant" to "List of women monarchs"

This page is incorrectly named: the content of the article does not answer to the title of thearticle. The title is "List of queens regnant", but the article includes women monarchs with all sorts of titles. Because of this reason, the article title does not answer to the content of the article. It would therefore be uncontroversial for anyone to change the name of the article without discussion.

The article contains women monarchs, regardless if they had the title "queen" or not. "Queen" is simply a title, and a woman can be a queen without being a monarch.

The article even explicitly states in its description: "This is a list of current and former female monarchs, including queens regnant, empresses regnant, pharaohs and monarchs by other titles (grand duchess, princess etc.). Where a queen had no powers but only the title, "(titular)" is added instead. Queens consort (i.e. wives to male monarchs) are not included, see List of current consorts of sovereigns. Queens regent or female regents are not included, see List of regents." Thus, the article even itself states that it includes all female monarchs regardless if they had the title queen or not. Consequently, the title "List of queens regnant" does not even confirm to the article's own stated purpose.

The article contains female monarchs regardless of title. Because of that, the title of the article should accordingly be changed to "List of women monarchs" to be in line with the content of the article. Either that, or remove the names of all the monarchs of this article which did not have the title queen.

The readers should not be given the incorrect assumption that all female monarchs had the title queen.

I will therefore change to title to make it in line with the content. --Aciram (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Female monarchs of multiple countries

What happens when specific queens ruled over 2 or more countries within the same region? Elizabeth II was Queen of the United Kingdom, but also Queen of Malta. Should she appear in two different sections or just one, which lists the countries she was monarch of?

This is a problem with most British monarchs in general, as with the exception of Mary, Queen of Scots (and discounting disputed queens), every other female monarch was always queen of at least 2 nations; England and Ireland. Mary II and Anne also being Queens of Scotland.

The list's name doesn't exactly specify that this list is structured based on geography, although the separations make that clear. Would it be better it they were separated based on continent, but each queen was listed alphabetically and in column listed the kingdoms she ruled over? Or the titles she had? PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 12 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — mw (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

---

List of women monarchs → List of female monarchs – Looking at Google Ngram Viewer, the WP:COMMONNAME is "female monarch".[1] Further, the current title is not inclusive to the monarchs who were children (girls) during the beginning of their reign, instead of adults (women), eg Isabella II of Spain. As "female" does not have a required age, it solves this issue —Panamitsu (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Peter Ormond 💬 23:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support: The phrase "female monarch(s)" is far more common than "women monarchs", which doesn't even seem grammatically correct; also for the reasons nominator discussed about age. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Grammatically better. And age issue is decisive. Walrasiad (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support as above and previous talk sections. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support It is common and covers female individuals of all ages (girls and women). Keivan.f^Talk 17:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. KevinNov3 (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above. --Yorkporter (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggesting reorganization

The current state of the article is quite bad. For one thing, it is extremely long, making it difficult to navigate. For another, the list also includes a section of not just legendary, but outright mythological queens. Shouldn't there be a separate page for that? Some suggestions for the article would be:

1. Get rid of all the sections except the first one; "Monarchs". The others can be moved to a separate list.
2. Follow the structure of List of current monarchs of sovereign states. Include the title of these female monarchs, and if they reigned more than two kingdoms, when their reigns started / ended.

Does anyone support such a reorganization, or retaining things as is? Maybe a compromise between these suggestions and how the article already is, or something else entirely? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It is impossible.

1. There is so little information about ancient queens that tables can't be created.

2. Personal Union is a system that rarely exists on continents other than Europe. Don't apply European culture to other continents. It is Eurocentrism.

3. Creating tables will make this page longer. You said this page is too long, why should tables be created?

I think the structure of List of regents is better. Acolex2 (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is it impossible? Even if there is little information on ancient queens, we can still include the dates of when their reigns began / ended; at least approximate dates. As for personal unions being mostly a European thing, it doesn't change the fact that there often are individuals who ruled over two or more countries. Having the same queen appear 10 times or more throughout the list becomes silly after a point, when other alternatives exist. As for size, maybe each continent should simply get its own page. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

For many ancient queens, the start and end dates of their reigns are unknown. Look at these pages -> Category:Ancient queens regnant. The approximate dates of reigns of many ancient queens are extensive. How will you display it in tables?

Taking Šamši as an example, I'd just place c. 735 to c. 710 in the "Reign start" and "Reign end" sections.

It doesn't change the fact that it is Eurocentrism. It is right to consider the monarchies of each country.

Then either don't have a differentiation based on continent, have it all be just one list, or have someone like Elizabeth appear, at most, 5 times on the list. Once in each continent, detailing which countries she ruled in said continent.

Which country would you place queens who ruled multiple countries in? For example, where should Maria I be placed: Brazil or Portugal? Please tell me the standards. It can be rude to people of another country.

Look at my previous comment. Maria I would be placed both in "The Americas" and "Europe" sections. Or, as I said, we have a single list without differentiating between continents.

I think you only know European queens. Are you going to create five new pages by continent?

Do you mean, will I try to improve all the other sections rather than just the "Europe" one? No. I'm not gonna do all that work. I'll only focus on what presently interests me the most.

The Commonwealth countries chose Elizabeth II as their monarch. Elizabeth II did not conquer those countries. Those countries are independent countries, so why place them in the UK? It is unconscious Eurocentrism and racism. In other words, they cannot be included in the UK because they independently chose their own monarch. Acolex2 (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

"why place them in the UK"? You mean placing Malta with the UK? Probably because Elizabeth II ruled over both of these countries, and if we are going to separate the list based on continent, it makes sense to place the two countries that a single monarch ruled together. That ensures her name does not get repeated 20 times on the list. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

For many ancient queens (like Lady of the Lions), the start and end dates of their reigns are unknown. Tables for ancient queens will be mostly empty, which will unnecessarily lengthen this page. How will you display it in tables? I think the structure of List of regents is better.

You are not answering to Eurocentrism and disrespect for other countries. What do you think about them?

Don't just answer with one example, please tell me your standards for placement. Which country would you place a queen who ruled multiple countries on the same continent? Where should Elizabeth II be placed among the countries of America in the American queens page? You didn't set standards yet, did you?

They would be placed either in chronological order, or in alphabetical order, similarly to the list on current monarchs, from before Elizabeth II died.

So which country section is that table placed in? I asked about the location of the table, not its appearance.

I saw your contributions and I think you are not interested in history. You are only interested in British queens and want someone else to edit the other queens. Just be honest about what you want. I have a good suggestion for you. Use the section 'Crown land and personal union' of this page. Just move the information about the Commonwealth realm to that section. Acolex2 (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

This may come as a shock to you, but it is not my job to "fix" the entire page. I can only work on the sections I feel like. If you care so much about the queens from the other continents, work on them yourself. Or do expect me to work on them first simply because you want them to be done first? Also, outside of the British queens, I was also working on the Scandinavian ones—and planned on doing the same thing with Maria Theresa, who also ruled over many monarchies—before you reverted those changes too. Funnily enough, I haven't seen you revert the other changes made to queens from countries like Japan or Egypt. Is there anything you'd like to be honest about?

Irregardless, here's some honesty, the List of regents page looks equally bad as this one, there's like 100 different sub-sections, and barely anything is sourced. Let's not act as if its some featured list that sets a good standard other such lists should follow. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and one other things. British monarchs are hardly the only ones to have ruled over two or more kingdoms. Besides Maria Theresa, another example would be some Spanish queens, and the Co-Princesses of Andorra, who held that position because of the status as Countesses or Queens of other countries. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

You can edit the British queens you are interested in. It's okay if you don't edit the other queens. But I'm interested in all queens, so I'll edit all queens, including queens you edited.

There is no personal union in Egypt and Japan.

You first used other page as an example. Let's not act as if its some featured list that sets a good standard other such lists should follow.

And why don't you answer my questions? I'll ask the same questions again.

1. For many ancient queens (like Lady of the Lions), the start and end dates of their reigns are unknown. Tables for ancient queens will be mostly empty, which will unnecessarily lengthen this page. How will you display it in tables?

Using the Lady of the Lions example, we would simply place the start, end, and length of reigns as either "—" or "Unknown"; or something similar. For most queens, we do have dates of when their reigns started; if not exact dates, then at least the year. This doesn't seem like it will be a common problem, but only for the very ancient queens. Which, if we follow through with eventually organizing the list in a chronological fashion (question #3), then it won't be an issue for most of the tables or section.

2. You are not answering to Eurocentrism and disrespect for other countries. What do you think about them?

I still don't see what the Eurocentrism or disrespect is? If a woman ruled two or more countries in two or more continents, then we would simply place that woman in both continents. Seeing as Maria I ruled over both Portugal and Brazil, we simply place her once in both the "Europe" and "Americas" section. Similarly, Elizabeth II would be placed in the "Oceania" section, where her rule over Australia and New Zealand would be mentioned; and any other countries she ruled there. Although this means that the same person would still appear a few times on the list, it least ensures that their name doesn't get repeated 10+ times. During her lifetime, Elizabeth II ruled over 30 countries at different times; it's best to have her name show up only 5 times, rather than 35.

3. Please tell me your standards for placement. Which country would you place a queen who ruled multiple countries on the same continent?

Honestly, I think that separating the monarchs based on continent is far enough. Taking further into something like "North Africa" or "South Asia" seems somewhat unnecessary. The queens should all be placed into one list that goes based on chronological order. Similarly to how list regarding awards are often based on decade—such as the Oscar for Best Actress—we can do something similar here. Of course, the separation wouldn't be based on decade, but century. Specifically, each queen would be place in the century in which her reign started. So, for example, Elizabeth II would be placed in the "20th Century" section. I haven't looked through the whole list, but I don't think there's a woman who started her reign in this century, so a "21st Century" section would not exist. So, in the case of women that ruled multiple countries within the same continent, they would be listed chronologically based on the country they started ruling first. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

4. I have a good suggestion for you. Use the section 'Crown land and personal union' of this page. Just move the information about the Commonwealth realm to that section.

I am answering all your questions. I would appreciate it if you could answer all my questions. If you can't answer, you can honestly say that you can't answer.

And why did you create a new page? Commonwealth countries are located not only in Europe but also in the rest of the continent. You said that the same queen appear many times is not good. Why would you create a new page listing only European queens? Doesn't that make navigation more difficult? And there are European queens in other sections of this page as well, what to do with them? It will make navigation more difficult. Explain it to me, please. You seem to be only thinking about the parts you want to edit.

You first said you are "suggesting". But now you don't want a compromise either. Do you want me to follow your opinion? Let's make a compromise together. Why did you say it was a "suggestion"? Acolex2 (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

You stopped talking to me and edited this page several times. Just edit this page to your liking. According to your contribution, you will stop editing this page in a few days because you are not interested in history. Then, I will edit the tables you created to my liking. Acolex2 (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, good for you¿? And since you care so much about history, unlike me, don't forget to edit the other tables too. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Crown land and personal union

I take issue with this section. First there should be a definition for 'crown land', and second, I can only talk on account of the russians, but it may also be the case with others, they were (at one point in time) the sole rulers of russia. 'part of X' also indicated that someone else was ruling the other part(s), which was not the case here. Is there a reason for this sections inclusion in the article at all? If so, why not list with the others by country?

EmilySarah99 (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I think now it refers to the countries under various kingdoms control, but that is not made clear. Again, why not include it in the location section, or next to the monarch's initial listing with a note 'and X'?

EmilySarah99 (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I respect your opinion and editing. That section was created by another user. [[2]] Acolex2 (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Given that this page is about which monarchs were female, rather than which country a female monarch, I'm not sure its inclusion is all that useful. Taking the "Estonia" sub-section into account, that would be useful is this page was something like "List of rulers of Estonia", and it was pointed out that modern-day Estonia was not a sovereign state back then, but was ruled by X Kingdom and ruled by these Y people, Z of which were women. As this specific page is about female monarchs and which sovereign states, dependent territories, or people they ruled, I'm not sure it should be here. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)